Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, the Commissioner of Social Security's decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 02/07/2024. (CS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
PAUL GREGORY GRAHAM
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 2:22cv161-HSO-BWR

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [16] AND REVERSING
AND REMANDING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
FOR FURTHER ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation [16] of United
States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath entered on January 23, 2024.

The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision
be reversed and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) for further proceedings. See R. & R. [16] at 14 (filed restricted access).
No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation [16], and the time for
doing so has passed.
After review of the record and relevant law, the Court finds that the Report
and Recommendation [16] should be adopted, that the Commissioner’s decision
should be reversed, and that this matter should be remanded to the Commissioner
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16].

I. BACKGROUND
On or about December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Paul Gregory Graham (“Plaintiff” or
“Graham”) filed an application with the Social Security Administration for
disability insurance benefits, alleging an onset of disability on May 1, 2018. See R.
[6] at 119 (filed restricted access).1 The claim was initially denied in March 2021,
see id. at 123, and upon reconsideration in July 2021, see id. at 129.
After Plaintiff submitted a request for hearing, see id. at 146, an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on January 6, 2022, see id. at 19.
The ALJ considered whether the claimant was disabled under the Social Security
Act (the “Act”) and whether he met its insured status requirements. See id. The
ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not been disabled from May 1, 2018, through the
date of that decision in January 2022. See id. at 19-31. Plaintiff sought Appeals
Council review of the ALJ’s decision, but the Appeals Council “found no reason
under [its] rules to review the Administrative Law Judge’s decision,” and denied
Plaintiff’s request. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff then filed a Complaint [1] in this Court seeking judicial review
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Compl. [1] (filed restricted access). Plaintiff
insists that “the denial of his disability claim is not supported by substantial
evidence under the standards set forth by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Id. at 2. He
contends that “the denial of his claim should be reversed or remanded for further
administrative proceedings.” Id.

The Court will cite the page numbers automatically generated by its Case
Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system.
1

2

On February 13, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath
entered a Report and Recommendation [16] finding that the ALJ erred by
formulating Plaintiff’s Residual Function Capacity (“RFC”) based upon her own lay
interpretation of a September 2021 MRI of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine, absent any
medical expert evaluation of the MRI in the context of what, if any, functional
limitations the findings would support. See R. & R. [16] at 6-14 (filed restricted
access). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the ALJ’s decision
be reversed and this case remanded to the Social Security
Administration to develop the record before determining Plaintiff’s RFC
by obtaining a medical opinion from a physician who has full access to
Plaintiff’s medical records and can opine regarding the impact of
Plaintiff’s condition upon his ability to work.
Id. at 14.
No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation [16], and the time
for doing so has passed. See L.U. Civ. R. 72(a)(3).
II. DISCUSSION
Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”). Where there are no objections, the Court applies the “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to the report
and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

3

Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the Report
and Recommendation [16] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The
Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16] as the
opinion of this Court and reverse and remand the decision of the Commissioner.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation [16] of United States Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath entered
on January 23, 2024, is ADOPTED as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Commissioner
of Social Security’s decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED under
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [16].
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 7th day of February, 2024.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4